Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Curriculum Assessment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

District presents early iReady results; staff recommend continued evaluation and possible K–8 adoption

Arlington Public Schools Board of Education · January 14, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Arlington staff reported early gains from an iReady pilot in fourth grade and outlined possible district‑wide adoption with an estimated K–8 license cost around $20,000; board asked administrators to study contract timing and budget implications.

District curriculum staff presented results from targeted fourth‑grade interventions and an iReady pilot during the board’s January meeting.

Presenters told the board that the December diagnostic showed early gains: about 55% of fourth graders met their year‑long reading growth goal and about 61% met projected growth in math over the diagnostic window. Staff described interventions including longer reading/math blocks, phonics assessments and targeted small‑group supports, and credited increased parent engagement and classroom adjustments for the progress.

The curriculum leader said iReady offers more granular, standards‑aligned diagnostics and individualized lessons compared with several tools the district currently uses, and staff are considering whether a district‑wide K–8 reading and math license could replace aspects of FastBridge and IXL. Administration estimated a full K–8 iReady package (reading and math licenses for all students) at roughly $20,000 annually, and noted the district would need to align contract timing and existing program contracts before making a purchase.

Board members asked about statewide assessment changes; staff noted the state will be using a different assessment schedule/platform in coming years and that district data‑cut scores can shift year to year, making comparisons imperfect. The board did not take a purchase vote; administration was asked to return with budget numbers and timing analysis.

Next steps: Administration to analyze contract timing, budget impact and potential program consolidations and report back to the board.